Part of 1996 Anti-Terror Law Overturned (9th Circuit: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!)

foxnews.com ^ | 12/04/03 | AP

[thoughtomator]

Come now. The PKK is not Al-Qaida. I am sure that Turkey does not have a law nor a position on wars that do not affect it and does not choose in every war a side to make illegal. The PKK only threatens Turkey, and no other nation. Al-Qaida threatens the entire world. Al-Qaida came into existence in order to enslave others, not to resist enslavement by others. They are not equivalent. They are so different that the Turk government instantly knew the difference when Al-Qaida hit.

[Thud]

That wasn't the issue in this case. Criminalizing conduct by donors is. Criminal intent of some sort is always required. There is no criminal liability without fault in America.

http://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/usf/law/criminal/outline.html

The California Supreme Court has further divided crimes into two categories(Shats, 129-130):

general intent

Evidence of the intent to perform the actual act is all that's needed. This category covers all objective fault crimes and some subjective fault crimes (Shats, 129-130). Without the need for an intent for anything further than the act, intoxication is no defense for general intent crimes (People v. Hood).

Assault in California is a general intent crime, requiring only that a reasonable person would know that an act would create a battery (People v. Hood, People v. Williams). specific intent

Evidence is needed of an intent not only to perform the act, but also of an intent to perform some additional act or achieve some additional consequence (Shats, 129-130). These are all subjective intent crimes

http://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/usf/law/criminal/cases.html#inrejorgem

In re Jorge M., 23 Cal.4th 866 (2000)
A minor was found posessing a seminautomatic rifle in violation of a statute. Held The statute defines a general intent crime, but criteria for general welfare crimes means full mens rea is not needed, just that the perpetrator knew or reasonably should have known of the gun's forbidden characteristics (negligence). A public welfare offense can be determined by:

Legislative history and context
General provision on mens rea
Severity of punishment
Seriousness of harm to the public
Difficulty of ascertaining facts
Difficulty of proving mental state
Number of expected prosecutions

[a_Turk]

>> Al-Qaida came into existence in order to enslave others, not to resist enslavement by others.

Hmm. I guess Al Qaeda is your problem. Not really mine. Good day!

[thoughtomator]

Don't care that they bomb Ankara and Istanbul, eh? You sure you're a Turk?

[a_Turk]

Great then, I suppose I could give money to Al Qaeda because they do have soup kitchens. No criminal intent on my part. What they do with the money? probably send students to airplane steering school.

Thanks for the explanation. How about some pragmatism though.

Maybe it's not enough of an emergency yet. Who knows.

[a_Turk]

We've lost 36000 to the PKK. You start feeding them again and we're through for good.

So with the recent bombings we've got 36,050. So what. No big deal.

The difference between you and me is not that we're different in nation, religion, sex, or some other visually discernable feature. We're different because I grew up with cold war terror and you did not. I understand your prespective. It's basically one of the stages before death, namely denial. And the death I am talking about here is not physical, but the end of the young America - full of youthful ideals and attitude. It's like a transition into middle age. Stomp your feet and exclaim that you WILL not adapt.. It's ok...

[Thud]

I doubt any US Attorney would have difficulty convincing a jury that you knew Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The US government could not, however, designate the Association of Turkish Reserve Officers a terrorist organization, and then nail you for contributing to them without proof that you knew at the time that the Association is a terrorist organization.

[a_Turk]

Ah, ok I see.. Ignorance is a valid defense then in some cases..

Nobody is going to use this law to go after some person who thought the donation was going to be used for good. Hell, I could be donating to someone who presented themselves as group a or b, but my donation might actually make its way to, let's say, Al Qaeda. The person collecting would get the heat, the person donating would be overlooked.

You simply do not trust your leadership. Pure and simple. If you did, you'd express your trust in their discretion and let them have their instrument.

[thoughtomator]

I've been closer to terrorism than I hope you will ever be, considering that I was inside the World Trade Center the first time they tried to destroy it. Was less than a half mile away when they finally succeeded. So don't give me the innocence-of-childhood lecture, this is every bit as personal to me as it is to anyone else.

The two nations have a mutual interest in eliminating Al-Qaida for a host of reasons. I'll tick off a few: a) AQ wants to overthrow both governments and install Islamic totalitarianism in its place; b) AQ has directly challenged the sovereignity of both states with military attacks and the promise of more in the future; c) neither nation cares for surrender and a stone age future under the direction these madmen.

The question posed to the world by Al-Qaida is: will the world fight totalitarianism or succumb to it? The PKK simply doesn't pose that kind of threat. The PKK isn't interested in ruling the world in a religious theocracy, is it? I thought that the PKK was a response to Turkey's criminalization of Kurdish language and culture. Given the Armenian holocaust was only in 1915, it seems reasonable for the Kurds to fear that another genocide was to follow.

Is this fear valid? Is the PKK fighting a war for the freedom of the Kurdish people? If - granted actual equality for Kurds in Turkey both under law and in practice - would the PKK have a reason to exist?

If the PKK would still conduct war under those circumstances, then I would agree that there is no merit to their position, and that violence motivated by greed or lust for power is evil and should be destroyed at all costs.

If it is at all similar to the situation in Sri Lanka - and I suspect it is - then I would take an educated guess and say there was a reasonable case that could be made for the minority culture to engage in war if that was the only option that offered hope for survival. Numbers in the Sri Lanka war are about 65,000 dead in a population of ~19 million, countless tortured, #2 in the world in 'disappearances' (2nd to Hussein's Iraq) and a human rights record that would make Mugabe blush.

I think we both know the Turk human rights record over the 20th century is not exactly sterling. I certainly recognize that the Turkey of today has come an enormously long way from the days of World War I, but its prisons and torture record have long been notorious worldwide. Absent a demonstration of no merit (in the manner of any number of good-faith agreements made by Israel with respect to the Palestinians, for example), Turkey would be on shaky ground to claim an equivalence between the PKK and Al-Qaida with respect to any third party. The U.S., on the other hand, can claim that Al-Qaida is a threat to third parties, because the actual fact of the matter is very much the truth.

I invite you to disabuse me of the notion that Turkey might have provoked an armed response from its Kurd minority, and that the PKK cause is without merit. For what reason does the PKK exist? (For reference: Al-Qaida exists to dominate the world with Islamic totalitarianism. It came into being as a result of widespread tyranny throughout the Arab world and a disconnection from reality rooted in a culture distorted by the ease of petroleum wealth.)

[thoughtomator]

The basis of US government is a mistrust of leadership, yes, 100% correct. King George and all that. Taxation without representation. Read our Declaration of Independence and you will have a good understanding of the basis for our system of government.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Make the choice. Now. Why I already have.

[Sandy]

The ruling is idiocy.

No it's not. The ruling is spot on.

At oral argument, the government told us that it could convict a person under § 2339B if he or she donates support to a designated organization even if he or she does not know the organization is so designated. That is, according to the government, it can convict an individual who gives money to a designated organization that solicits money at their doorstep so long as the organization identifies itself by name. It is no defense, according to the government, that the organization describes to the donor only its humanitarian work to provide basic services to support victims displaced and orphaned by conflict, or to defend the cultural and linguistic rights of ethnic minorities. And, the government further contends, it is no defense that a donor contributes money solely to support the lawful, humanitarian purposes of a designated organization. But we believe that to attribute the intent to commit unlawful acts punishable by life imprisonment to persons who acted with innocent intent—in this context, without critical information about the relevant organization—contravenes the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of “personal guilt.”

It's pretty simple. We don't put a person in prison for life in this country for doing something that the person didn't know was a crime.

Mens Rea. Look it up.

[Patangeles]

In addition, the court wrote that it is unconstitutional to criminalize donations of personnel or training, which fall under the "material support" section of the law, because that "blurs the line between protected expression and unprotected expression."

But expression is not Constitutionally protected . Only speech is. Herein lies the fallacy.

[a_Turk]

I personally will not help you if you do not help me. Kapish?

[a_Turk]

The "you" was plural you singular dunce..

[thoughtomator]

We are helping you, a heck of a lot more than you are acknowledging, capice? After the experience of the 4th I.D. this past February, such an ultimatum is hollow. We help Turkey so that next time we really need Turk help, we'll get jerked around for another $50 billion, which may or may not be accepted, depending on what France has to offer?

Turkey's self-mutilation with regards to the EU is not the US fault.

[wtc911]

Months ago when asked if it came down to a true war between islam and America your turk friend said..." I guess I'll meet you in the parking lot". His first confessed allegience is to allah.

[wtc911]

You need to read a bit more. Turkey was Hitler's number one trading partner throughout WW2, in spite of impassioned pleas from London and DC.

turkey sent one brigade to Korea with the expressed intent of leveraging that to gain access to NATO, which they did get after sending the troops.

turkey's number one foreign policy goal now is access to the EC. Germany and France are the BSDs in that club. turkey, no longer needing the US to protect them from the Russians, sold is out to curry favor with Paris and Berlin.

You can check it all out yourself with a little googling or you can swallow the propaganda dished out here by muslim turks with an agenda.

[wtc911]

Ah...you've managed to get our turk friend to call you a name. You must feel so hurt.

[wtc911]

There are so many muslim organizations in the US that are under investigation and indictment for funneling money collected from the "community" to terrorists that one must wonder if a % of all mosque tithings end up paying for bullets. If only we had a good US based muslim to ask.